League Disaster - looking for input (1 Viewer)

[replacements]

CS, I understand why many league owners are upset.The trades are bad. What I don't understand is the complaining about collusion. If you really want to get an idea, just politely explain to the rook that there is some question within the league regarding the reasoning behind his trades. He should be able to explain why the deals made sense to him. To an experienced player his logic may sound dumb. Just remember he is new. If he has no reasoning behind his deals. maybe you will have to look a little deeper.

Without knowing scoring or rosters it is harder to figure out. but just looking at the 2 trades, you can guess at how an experienced owner could sucker a rookie into the1st deal. With Roddy White under performing, and owning the backup to an injured rice. I think i could talk a rookie owner into seeing the value of gaining decker to replace white, and acquiring the backup to his main rb. But of course, those are 2 valuable guys, so I need graham in return. The 2nd deal is a little harder to speculate on. My suspicion is the Rook is a raiders fan. But I'm just guessing at all of this of course.

In the end. If the league is what you say it is. Lots of long time vets that are friends and not in it just for the money. Collusion is unlikely. I personally would be careful not to accuse friends of cheating. Plus if the guy is in the league 5 years from now, i'm guessing there will be a lot of laughs busting his chops about the dumb stuff he did as a newb.

 

[Wilfredo Ledezma]

Start using TEs

 

[32 Counter Pass]

These are bad trades, but hardly worth getting everyone's panties in a bunch.

 

[cobalt_27]

These are bad trades, but hardly worth getting everyone's panties in a bunch.

Without question. Based on the OP's response pattern, he came in here wanting validation for how mortified he is and disappointed and antagonistic toward those who are saying let it go. Difference between stupidity and collusion. Would be a terrible decision to kick this guy out based on this.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

These are bad trades, but hardly worth getting everyone's panties in a bunch.

Without question. Based on the OP's response pattern, he came in here wanting validation for how mortified he is and disappointed and antagonistic toward those who are saying let it go.

It's how 95% of these commish issue threads go....

I'll give them credit for at least asking others for input. Seems fairly obvious this league can't handle trades & probably should look to go to no trades.

 

[cobalt_27]

Looking at the first deal, if you project graham to continue producing at this level, then of course you can't justify giving up a guy who is on pace for 1600/26. It's more likely, though, that he reverts back closer to his 2011 campaign form when he produced 1300/11 type numbers, which is still great, but...Decker won't be far off from that. And, the fact that he handcuffs Rice, given the considerable drop-off at RB on his roster, I get it. That's the price of insurance. I'd probably try to get more, but this is totally defensible.

The second deal I don't like at all because of Roddy, who I think is going to get it right with the ankle and be just fine. But, if you surmise he's going to be battling this thing, potentially reinjure it, and you foresee better production from Pryor v. Kaep moving forward (which P >K at this point), again it's defensible. I would not make that trade because I think Roddy will be fine, and I think Kaep will improve. But, there are honest, credible arguments to be made for both deals.

At minimum, the arguments in support of these trades are far superior to the arguments I've heard that suggest this is collusion.

As commissioner, you look the other way and, in fact, have this owner's back and tell the other owners to calm the #### down.

 

[Phrenchdude]

CS, I understand why many league owners are upset.The trades are bad. What I don't understand is the complaining about collusion. If you really want to get an idea, just politely explain to the rook that there is some question within the league regarding the reasoning behind his trades. He should be able to explain why the deals made sense to him. To an experienced player his logic may sound dumb. Just remember he is new. If he has no reasoning behind his deals. maybe you will have to look a little deeper.

Without knowing scoring or rosters it is harder to figure out. but just looking at the 2 trades, you can guess at how an experienced owner could sucker a rookie into the1st deal. With Roddy White under performing, and owning the backup to an injured rice. I think i could talk a rookie owner into seeing the value of gaining decker to replace white, and acquiring the backup to his main rb. But of course, those are 2 valuable guys, so I need graham in return. The 2nd deal is a little harder to speculate on. My suspicion is the Rook is a raiders fan. But I'm just guessing at all of this of course.

In the end. If the league is what you say it is. Lots of long time vets that are friends and not in it just for the money. Collusion is unlikely. I personally would be careful not to accuse friends of cheating. Plus if the guy is in the league 5 years from now, i'm guessing there will be a lot of laughs busting his chops about the dumb stuff he did as a newb.

I agree with this. Before all this indignation, there should have been a civilized step where the rookie owner was allowed to argue his case and defend his trades in a transparent manner. Mocking and trash-talking will certainly impede that step, but nevertheless, it should be allowed to happen. Remember that valuing potential is an integral part of evaluating trades and everyone does so in different ways. Noone thought Cam Newton or RGIII would be top-5 QBs in their rookie years and any owner trading them for a Matt Ryan or Stafford would have been accused of throwing the towel. And yet.... Who knows, maybe Terrelle Pryor explodes into the next Randall Cunninghame (probably not - but perhaps that's this rookie's belief). Perhaps these are high risk-high reward trades? or perhaps he's just grossly uninformed? But the majority, even an informed majority, isnt always right.

Besides that, you also have to accept that by taking on a complete rookie in a league full of experienced owners, these kinds of situation will necessarily arise. In a way, your league has made its bed when it selected that new owner, and now it has to lie in it. Your mistake might have been not being sufficiently selective when filling the open slot in your league, but going back on your word (and legitimacy) as a league is damaging. The responsability really lies with the entire league.

If there IS collusion then so be it, but letting the winds of righteous indignation and jealousy prevail and kicking an owner mid-season without giving him a chance to explain is kind of weak sauce. I would say deal with the bad decision like responsible adults, consider it an extra exceptional obstacle than seasoned veteran owners like yourselves can and should be able to surmount, and reassess at the end of the season.

You role as commish is to be an impartial judge: control the furor and calm the other owners down, as opposed to joining them in their indignation. Set up a platform so this can situation can be cleared and explained. And as in real life, the suspect should be considered innocent until proven guilty without a doubt, not the otyher way round.

 

[cheese]

If all the veteren owners agree (as your suggesting) that his trades are a problem, can't you all just make an agreement to stop trading with him and discuss it at the end of the season? No chance you reverse the deals IMO

 

[Genester]

It's not really about the money. It's about the league history, good friends, having been in a league for 20 years together.

I think you have to ultimately decide what is more critical to you: running the league by the rules or bending them to accommodate the friendships and opinions of folks who represent the majority of owners. I've seen both options applied. Based on my experience as a Commissioner, I refuse to do the second option. We all play by the rules, and true friends and savvy FF owners can understand the situation and adjust to it. The second option often sounds like the "right thing to do", but ultimately isn't, and in retrospect, often leads to the eventual problems with the league.

One thing I would do for sure is to discuss this situation next off-season, and possibly address it with rule changes, as the owners believe it should be handled. This would show you both enforce the rules and are flexible enough to adjust them over time. I know this doesn't help you right now, but this is the way I would handle it.

 

[ponchsox]

Smells like some jealous owners. He is a fantasy newbie and doesn't know what he's doing (yet). The only mistake the other owners made was not sending trade offers to improve their teams.

 

[shadyridr]

We have a guy in our league who in the first year made one dumb decision after another. We all laughed and even some reacted the way you are now. We kept the guy in the league because we figured he'd improve. And guess what? He has the best record in our league since he joined and has one championship. Funny thing is he still makes these dumb moves and we still laugh at him but it works. We think hes an idiot savant

 

[adrenaline]

Commissioner needs to screen potential owners better, even idiots can stumble upon $100.

 

[Bayhawks]

These trades aren't great, but I don't see any evidence of collusion.

The first one was far worse, but the rookie obviously wanted to acquire Pierce as insurance. We read on these boards, all the time about handcuffing players, or sniping those handcuffs as trade bait. It appears that is exactly what happened here. The rookie made a stupid trade. BTW-who is his other TE?

The second trade is more even, in my opinion. Kaepernick has looked decidely average after his first game. He isn't running much at all, and that's where his true FF value lies. Pryor is, IMO, more likely to run, because the offensive skill players around him aren't as impressive as around Kaep. Furthermore, if the rookie already has Rivers, he should be starting him over Kaep. So he essentially traded his backup QB for a QB who MIGHT have more upside. White for Thomas isn't bad either. With Ingram still not practicing, Thomas could be a valuable RB (hasn't been so far, but in the past, he has flashed potential). White hasn't done much this year. Maybe he's going to get healthy, maybe he's started on the downside. But you can't judge this trade on what White has done in the past. Rignt now, he is an injured WR who hasn't scored all year, and has less than 100 receiving yards over the season.

With Rice coming off the hip, and Pierce being nicked up, BJGE looking like he might lose work to Gio, and Woodhead only being a "Sproles" type back, perhaps he thought Thomas would benefit his team more than White.

 

[Funkley]

Agree with Cobalt, if anything you should have his back for participating and trying.

 

[Van Dyman]

If the best part about your league is the camaraderie with friends and playing with the same people for many years, then you have to chalk it up to it being this guy's first year in YOUR league. Old leagues develop different culture and "group think" regarding how to value players for trading purposes, especially if a lot of the owners play in only that league.

If you are interested in acclimating him into your league and hopefully having him with you for many years, just ask for his reasoning and then explain why it seems like a bad trade. That way you introduce the new guy to your league's typical rationale and he'll adapt. If you had done that after the first trade, the second one may have never happened.

As for collution, I doubt there is collusion in week 4 of a money league and it would be hard to prove anyway. If you are taking any action based on collusion you have to be really sure. And if you're sure I think you have to kick out all the owners involved. That seems like a good way to seriously, permanently mess up a long-standing successful league.

I would not undo the trade, block his team, or replace him with a new owner. You live and learn, as does the new owner. In the meantime, the word is out on the fresh meat so dig in.

 

[Black]

Advice is have commish approve trades...allowing league votes are not ever a good idea.

If you suspect anything fishy, just contact two owners and say 'if you do this trade, you are going to cause major problems in this league...so I can't allow it.'

 

[Insein]

If this is a start 1qb league I don't see the issue. Kaep and pryor are both backup qbs in a league like that. The Jimmy Graham trade just sounds like a ff vet taking advantage of a rookie owner. It happens. You inevitably hear the posts that say "dude I would have given you so much more for graham man."

Hardly a disaster. Just boot the guy at the end of the year and move on.

 

[dornado]

For context (as I'm in this league) I think people were concerned that after the first trade there was league chat/message board backlash (which isn't uncommon in any league) and the owner that made trade #2 (who is the only one that knows this new guy, and vouched for his ability to play in a league with experienced owners) told all of us that this new owner was upset and hurt by some of the comments made... then, the next week he fell to 0-3-1... the collusion accusations come from the perception that at that point he gave up on the league and made trade #2 with his friend as a "**** you, goodbye" type move.

We had the guy on the phone and he explained why he wanted to do the deal... I think he's doing a terrible job of judging player value and was essentially negligent in not even attempting to shop around, but our league has been around since 1993 and I don't think we've vetoed a trade since maybe 1997 or 1998... as CS explained in the OP, as a standing rule we don't veto trades unless there is evidence of collusion. Mostly, we're just unusually (as I would hope the people on this board could relate) obsessed with our fantasy league... it is a bunch of guys from the old neighbordhood that have been keeping it together for 20 years now (despite being scattered around the world at this point). Having a new guy come in and seemingly get taken advantage of and/or give up when his team was winless in week 4 rattled the group a bit.

 

[Insein]

For context (as I'm in this league) I think people were concerned that after the first trade there was league chat/message board backlash (which isn't uncommon in any league) and the owner that made trade #2 (who is the only one that knows this new guy, and vouched for his ability to play in a league with experienced owners) told all of us that this new owner was upset and hurt by some of the comments made... then, the next week he fell to 0-3-1... the collusion accusations come from the perception that at that point he gave up on the league and made trade #2 with his friend as a "**** you, goodbye" type move.

We had the guy on the phone and he explained why he wanted to do the deal... I think he's doing a terrible job of judging player value and was essentially negligent in not even attempting to shop around, but our league has been around since 1993 and I don't think we've vetoed a trade since maybe 1997 or 1998... as CS explained in the OP, as a standing rule we don't veto trades unless there is evidence of collusion. Mostly, we're just unusually (as I would hope the people on this board could relate) obsessed with our fantasy league... it is a bunch of guys from the old neighbordhood that have been keeping it together for 20 years now (despite being scattered around the world at this point). Having a new guy come in and seemingly get taken advantage of and/or give up when his team was winless in week 4 rattled the group a bit.

Then I stand by what I said. The guy is not very experienced and doesn't take it as seriously as the veterans of the league. Your friend made a bad judgement of character for who would be good for the league. Just politely ask him to leave next year and seek out someone new.

 

[renesauz]

I hate these trades for dynasty, but in a redraft I could totally see someone making them, especially a rookie.

 

[Warrior]

can't you all just make an agreement to stop trading with him and discuss it at the end of the season?

Why? That would fix nothing. Damage is done.

 

[Resident A]

I'd overturn the 2nd trade in my main league, and toss the guy if he even proposes another lopsided trade. F that guy for screwing up a league in it's 20th season. People like that can fold an established league.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

Local sports radio station was talking to one of those gambling advice guys after Wisconsin lost to Arizona State. If you didn't see the game or hear about it, it was a total mess, as the refs failed to spot the ball in a timely manner at the end of the game. The delay cost Wisconsin the ability to kick a potential game winning FG. The officials subsequently were suspended for a week by the Pac 10.

So how does this apply to the OP's situation?

It's the comment that was made by the gambling advice guy. Asked if he thought there was any sort of ulterior motives, he said "No. But I do think there are stupid people born every minute, and you'll find them in all walks of life."

The rookie in your league made some stupid trades. Very unlikely any collusion was involved. At least its not dynasty. We've dealt with this in our leagues several times over the years. I've learned to relax. Sometimes a fellow leaguemate wins a trade in a landslide. Sometimes your first round RB sucks, and sometimes you have the 2nd most points in a given week and still lose.

Let it go. If he doesn't learn from his mistakes, don't invite him back.

 

[apalmer]

taking a look the values from the FBG top 200 for week 5:

Trade 1:

Rookie: Graham 45.4 + Hunter 1 = 46.4

Other Team: Pierce 3.2 + Decker 23.5 = 26.7

Trade 2:

Rookie: Kap 13.3 + White 11.2 = 24.5

Other Team: Pryor 1 + Thomas 4.6 = 5.6

David wilson went from 4 points to 21 points on that list in one week. Is the noob not allowed to be ahead of the curve if the rest of the league doesn't like it?

You are giving the 'noob' an awful lot of credit. You seem to think he is some kind of savant.

Could Pryor be better than Kaep? Sure. But it would be sheer dumb luck, and that is all.

If your input is just deal with it and move on, fine, that is valid input and definitely a legitimate option. But just stop trying to argue the trades. Not the input I am seeking. Thanks.

In other words, don't bother posting in this thread if we disagree with you? OK.

 

[Deflinkin]

If there is no collusion the trade stands. Yes those would be trades I would not make. But you and the other owners in the league are completely out of line in telling him how to run his team.

 

[CariocaSean]

taking a look the values from the FBG top 200 for week 5:

Trade 1:

Rookie: Graham 45.4 + Hunter 1 = 46.4

Other Team: Pierce 3.2 + Decker 23.5 = 26.7

Trade 2:

Rookie: Kap 13.3 + White 11.2 = 24.5

Other Team: Pryor 1 + Thomas 4.6 = 5.6

David wilson went from 4 points to 21 points on that list in one week. Is the noob not allowed to be ahead of the curve if the rest of the league doesn't like it?

You are giving the 'noob' an awful lot of credit. You seem to think he is some kind of savant.

Could Pryor be better than Kaep? Sure. But it would be sheer dumb luck, and that is all.

If your input is just deal with it and move on, fine, that is valid input and definitely a legitimate option. But just stop trying to argue the trades. Not the input I am seeking. Thanks.

In other words, don't bother posting in this thread if we disagree with you? OK.

I don't think that is what I said. I think what I said is that arguing whether the deals are reasonable or not was not my intention of the thread because I created the thread under the assumption that they were both epic fail trades. Don't need to hear about how Graham could get hurt and the rookie could win the trade, etc. Or any other far our theory about why the trade could make sense. They don't. Plenty of other posters understand that in here.

 

[T with T]

yea that or just make the trades back and kick them both out.. Thats total bull#### ####ni scam. Both them trades are terrible... as bad as the second one is I think the first is worse... JGRAHAM is the highest scorer in the leaguee ppr with 108 points... JC has 97 AP 94 JULIO 93.8 and guess What J.Cameron 96. Why would anyone want to trade Graham esp for a wr2.... STUPIDITY at its highest and it must be removed.

 

[Hu-Tang Clan]

In a non-ppr and not mandatory to start a TE I don't see how everyone thinks the first trade is so horrible. Sure Graham has a much higher TD ratio than Decker but are you all saying there isn't a chance that Graham slows down on the TD's and Decker improves his?

 

[everydayj]

Seems like there are a lot of people in here that forget what it's like in your first year of fantasy football. I had a new owner draft Daunte Culpepper 1.1 back in 2006. He was injured and horrible the year before and probably wasn't even a 5th round pick. Did we mock him relentlessly about it? Yup. Does he still get mocked about it? Yep. But he's turned into one of the best owners in the league in the last seven years.

Rookie owners do stupid things. They draft badly. They trade horribly. They make questionable free agent pick-ups and drops. This is what you get with a first year owner. Take your lumps. Bear down. He'll get better. And if he doesn't, gently remove him from the league in a couple of years.

 

[CariocaSean]

In a non-ppr and not mandatory to start a TE I don't see how everyone thinks the first trade is so horrible. Sure Graham has a much higher TD ratio than Decker but are you all saying there isn't a chance that Graham slows down on the TD's and Decker improves his?

Graham is probably going to be a monster. Decker is on an offense where he is third... maybe even 4th wheel.

 

[Hu-Tang Clan]

In a non-ppr and not mandatory to start a TE I don't see how everyone thinks the first trade is so horrible. Sure Graham has a much higher TD ratio than Decker but are you all saying there isn't a chance that Graham slows down on the TD's and Decker improves his?

Graham is probably going to be a monster. Decker is on an offense where he is third... maybe even 4th wheel.

As of right now Graham has 3 more catches for 118 more yards on 7 more targets than Decker. Take away the TD's and they aren't all that far apart from each other. I'm not saying you can ignore TD's but Welker has 6 already and isn't typically scoring that often based on past history so is it so far fetched that Decker starts getting some of Welker's scores and Colston starts getting some of Graham's? Certainly not that it should cause such an uproar.

 

[Johnny Blood]

For context (as I'm in this league) I think people were concerned that after the first trade there was league chat/message board backlash (which isn't uncommon in any league) and the owner that made trade #2 (who is the only one that knows this new guy, and vouched for his ability to play in a league with experienced owners) told all of us that this new owner was upset and hurt by some of the comments made... then, the next week he fell to 0-3-1... the collusion accusations come from the perception that at that point he gave up on the league and made trade #2 with his friend as a "**** you, goodbye" type move.

We had the guy on the phone and he explained why he wanted to do the deal... I think he's doing a terrible job of judging player value and was essentially negligent in not even attempting to shop around, but our league has been around since 1993 and I don't think we've vetoed a trade since maybe 1997 or 1998... as CS explained in the OP, as a standing rule we don't veto trades unless there is evidence of collusion. Mostly, we're just unusually (as I would hope the people on this board could relate) obsessed with our fantasy league... it is a bunch of guys from the old neighbordhood that have been keeping it together for 20 years now (despite being scattered around the world at this point). Having a new guy come in and seemingly get taken advantage of and/or give up when his team was winless in week 4 rattled the group a bit.

I appreciate your take much more than Carioca's. Thanks.

Here's the key point for me: "I think he's doing a terrible job of judging player value and was essentially negligent in not even attempting to shop around"

The former is not reason for the commish to do anything and the latter indicates that the real issue is who apparently profited. Why is he negligent for not doing even more to be an active owner? Who other than his "friend" tried to trade with him after the first trade? Of those who didn't try to trade, why aren't they the negligent ones? This owner sounds highly active, not negligent. Nobody is under any obligation to send out trade offers. Those who grind have a chance to win, those who don't can't complain when they miss out on apparently sweet deals.

*IF* he packed it in after being offended by the initial outrage then it is collusion. But you don't sound so convinced.

 

[Johnny Blood]

In a non-ppr and not mandatory to start a TE I don't see how everyone thinks the first trade is so horrible. Sure Graham has a much higher TD ratio than Decker but are you all saying there isn't a chance that Graham slows down on the TD's and Decker improves his?

Graham is probably going to be a monster. Decker is on an offense where he is third... maybe even 4th wheel.

So what? You may be right. What then? These are just everyday evaluations that people disagree about. That's the whole point of the game IMO.

 

[dancingbones]

Nothing to see here. Make the guy a trade offer.

 

[jdkapow]

First trade: no evidence of collusion (he traded with a different guy from the one who brought him in), provides evidence that the new owner is clueless.

Second trade: offered by the guy who brought him in the league, so yeah, it's fishy. But we already know the owner is clueless (or at least approaches things in an unconventional way). What is the new owner's explanation for why he accepted the trade? If he has any logic at all behind it and if he keeps setting his lineup every week, then you simply have a novice owner acting like a novice owner.

Seems to me that this whole episode reflects most poorly on the guy who offered him that second trade.

 

[Vector]

Disaster

 

[nastynate]

I don't see enough to warrant making a move.

You can't stop someone from making a dumb move, or being taken advantage of. You said that most of the guys are pretty experienced, but you give them no credit for negotiating favorable trades?

How about you leave him in and tell the rest of the league to avoid taking advantage of him.

 

[B-Deep]

Seems like this is another thread about a league where the OP knows what he wants to hear, and just gets annoyed at anything else



may as well just post a haiku, it'll be as impactful as anything else

those trades are not good

some team owners do dumb things

such is fantasy

 

[B-Deep]

also

kicking this guy out mid season would be a disaster

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If this was the AC forum I think someone would ask to see the whole rosters and the scoring format.

If the guy who traded Roddy White has a couple good WRs and frankly White's doing nothing this year. I could see making the Kap/Pryor trade because maybe that Kap performance vs Sea was so bad he thinks it's not worth it the next time they play Seattle, and maybe he thinks Pryor's running makes him more of a lock for a steady 20 points.

The Graham/Decker trade seems really bad but hey if he has Rice and he's concerned about him missing time, well I think we can all relate to being concerned with the idea of having to go pick up an Oggbonnaya or a Chris Ivory as some kind of emergency setback. In any event people need to calm down with accusation of collusion. Let him play, learn and lose.

 

[ryno1980]

Sour grapes. He obviously didn't understand Graham's value or he would have asked for more. But I can see how one would see Pryor having equal fantasy potential to kaepernick. That's far from a disaster. Has the op watched San Francisco play?

 

[stbugs]

Sour grapes. He obviously didn't understand Graham's value or he would have asked for more. But I can see how one would see Pryor having equal fantasy potential to kaepernick. That's far from a disaster. Has the op watched San Francisco play?

Agree with many comments in this thread. I have one redraft league and in a redraft, I just dropped Kaep for Pryor. Let me add that we have to redraft after week 7 with 2 keepers (ADP and Bryant or DThomas or Cameron for me), so I looked at the next three weeks and realized Kaep has sucked and plays good passing Ds. If I am willing to do that and White has done jack squat when Julio has clearly become #1 (not 1a/1b), then the second trade doesn't seem bad to me at all. Pryor is running a lot more and with McFadden dinged, he is going to carry the offense. I could easily see Pryor outscoring Kaep by a nice margin.

The first trade is ridiculous because I know how valuable Graham, but in a no starting TE league, Graham is a solid WR and not a ridiculous stud.

I think I see a lot of jealous owners that are probably more upset that they didn't get in on the trades. I have been that same way when I saw trades I didn't like, but why would he collude with an owner he doesn't know in redraft? The second trade is far from as bad as the OP wants to make it seem. Trading away two underperformers (Kaep is QB#22 and White is #89 in my league). Stop thinking about 2012, we are 25% into 2013, this isn't week 1 anymore. White's best game is 3 receptions for 28 yards and no TDs and the OP would take him over Pryor and PThomas? Pryor is averaging more points per game than Kaep even with Kaep's week 1, and outside of Kaep's week 1, Pryor looks a whole lot better. Sure, Kaep and White could figure it out, but it sure doesn't look promising.

 

[Doubtingthomas]

Looking at the first deal, if you project graham to continue producing at this level, then of course you can't justify giving up a guy who is on pace for 1600/26. It's more likely, though, that he reverts back closer to his 2011 campaign form when he produced 1300/11 type numbers, which is still great, but...Decker won't be far off from that. And, the fact that he handcuffs Rice, given the considerable drop-off at RB on his roster, I get it. That's the price of insurance. I'd probably try to get more, but this is totally defensible.

The second deal I don't like at all because of Roddy, who I think is going to get it right with the ankle and be just fine. But, if you surmise he's going to be battling this thing, potentially reinjure it, and you foresee better production from Pryor v. Kaep moving forward (which P >K at this point), again it's defensible. I would not make that trade because I think Roddy will be fine, and I think Kaep will improve. But, there are honest, credible arguments to be made for both deals.

At minimum, the arguments in support of these trades are far superior to the arguments I've heard that suggest this is collusion.

As commissioner, you look the other way and, in fact, have this owner's back and tell the other owners to calm the #### down.

Agree with this line of thought. each year is different and studs have off years. 1/4 of the though the season should be enough to justify a jettison of under performing studs. And kaep hasnt started that many games in his career. Not sure you can annoit him fantasy stud status yet.

 

[Goooals]

You mentioned that the trade was proposed to him. Although he accepted the deal, it is your Fantasy owners who are taking advantage of this Rookie. Sounds like you have a couple of jealous owners (or commish) because they didn't get to him first.

Why would you punish this guy for accepting the deal and not the 20-year experienced Fantasy owners who are proposing them?

You can't have it both ways..................

 

[buck naked]

There's that stupid "c" word again.

 

[Bob Barker]

I always identify the newbs in my leagues and rape them for all their good players before someone else does. A lot of people are pissed at some of the trades but they are just jealous that they didnt get to him first, so f them. If you want to be a shark you have to take advantage of the guppies

 

[McGarnicle]

I always identify the newbs in my leagues and rape them for all their good players before someone else does. A lot of people are pissed at some of the trades but they are just jealous that they didnt get to him first, so f them. If you want to be a shark you have to take advantage of the guppies

I traded Tate for Gore a few weeks ago. Gore owner is a rookie and autodrafted, and for some reason ESPN picked 4 RBs in the first 4 rounds -- Foster, Gore, Chris Johnson and McFadden. I noticed he was benching Gore and sold him on Tate for the Foster handcuff value. I was surprised when he took it. He just dropped Johnson the other day too, f'n jackass.

 

[Dondante]

These are the best... If there is no vote, no trading disclaimer, no security whatsoever against this other than the experience level and integrity of the owner, you absolutely cannot adjust these trades. If you want to be a baby about it you can kick the guy out of the league, but it will still be the league's fault. Bad trades suck but they happen. Bad trades aren't as bad as crybaby league mates when it comes to bad trades, though.

 

[Hu-Tang Clan]

Please change the title of this thread to "League non-issue - looking for people to take my side". Thanks

 

[HurryUpSundays]

Please change the title of this thread to "League non-issue - looking for people to take my side". Thanks

Exactly.